Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

There seems to be a paradox here at DVDTalk.

If one begins a thread on a topic which has already been touched upon, they get lambasted for not using the search function.

Yet if one uses the search function to find the original thread and posts in that, they get lambasted for resurrecting an old thread.

I think it would be nice if a lot more people relaxed about either situation, frankly.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

I don't like it when people get yelled at for either one. If it's been a month since the topic was last covered, then yeah it should be pointed out. If it's been a year or something, then I don't see a problem with having a brand new topic on it.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

But why the necessity of creating a duplicate thread, no matter how old the previous one is? Should the forum get rid of all threads older than one year? What would be the point then of the search function or archiving threads in the forum?

I get annoyed when people get pissed at me when I just post the previous thread in the duplicate. What is wrong with that? I only pointed out that there was a previous discussion that may answer the OP question or have the same information that he is providing.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

I don't understand why people get upset with resurrecting previous threads if still pertains to the subject in question. At least they are making an effort in using the search function instead of just creating a new thread.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

The old threads might have a bunch of outdated posts and info, whereas the new one might have everything right at the start so people don't have to read a multi-page thread to get the info they're looking for. I don't see the big deal, else people would have to search before posting anything. It's one thing if it's a topic covered recently like the Dark Knight, but if we're talking about a DVD release was rumored years ago but never came out, a new thread with fresh info doesn't hurt anyone.

I can see why people are annoyed with you, since you noticeably seem to be playing mini-mod the last month.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Like I said in another feedback thread, this didn't start on purpose or anything like that. It started with the Batman thread, where I just posted the link to the previous thread which answered the OP's question. After that, several members, most of them newbies, attacked me, while others, mostly long time members, supported me. After that, everything went downhill, but in all of this, I have seen little administrative action taking place to resolve the issues one way or the other and that is what bothers me the most.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

2nd option. Unless the thread is only a few weeks old, make a new one. Otherwise, you have people coming in to respond to the OP without looking at the original post date, which was years ago, causing mass confusion and worldwide chaos.

(A caveat might be if the new post is the EXACTLY the same as an older one, so the older discussions would still be relevant to the new post.)

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

There are many times when the info they are seeking is already contained in the old thread. Many times a new thread will only rehash some of the old info.

The part that ticks me off is when someone KNOWS of the old thread but doesn't wanna bother reading through it so it's just easier to start a new thread. It's just plain laziness.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Do you know the clusterfuck that your suggestion will cause? There will duplicated threads every month on the same topic while every other discussion will be pushed back.

I'm a long time member of criterionforum.org and we have simple guidelines and rules:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/...c.php?f=4&t=16

The fact that this simple rules are enforce, gives us a better discussing environment and organization. To me, this is the key to why that forum has industry insiders and movie critics who participate constantly.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Right, but often times info is buried somewhere deep in a multipage thread and not exactly easy to find.

Like I said, something like the Dark Knight threads or questions coming up I understand. If it's something that hasn't been discussed in awhile, I don't see the big deal, nor do I see how that sort of thing bothers people so much that they have to respond and whine about it. If it's something recent, link to the old thread and move on. Big whoop.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Oftentimes it seems like the ones that are so quick to point out that something has been posted already, are the ones that will themselves repost something. In addition, the thread bumping thing, I have seen it both ways. We need a set of guidelines here, and we need to let the mods do their jobs. If you see a repost, report it and move on. Stop trying to be a mod.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Maybe because it's really not a big deal?

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Nothing's more annoying than someone whining about spoilers when the movie has already been out and the thread has 100+ posts after the fact.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

To the OP:

I created a thread just like this months ago... -ohbfrank-

POLL: Search for old threads, or create a new one?

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Can't it "just depend"?

Two (hypothetical) examples from movie talk:

Example A: Favorite Orson Welles movie?
Example B: Favorite David Fincher movie?

Orson Welles has been dead for many years and as such, his output is somewhat fixed. Rather than start a new thread with this subject, look for an old one and post in it instead. Opinions on <b>Touch of Evil</b> probably won't change much over the course of a few years, so most of what had already been posted would still apply.

David Fincher is still working and presumably someone might change their opinion of his output because of recent movies. In this case, the conscientious hypothetical thread starter might do a search, and if an older thread exists but, e.g., predates both Zodiac and Benjamin Button, they might elect to start a new thread and simply link to the old one.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

Heh. Nice try. Lucky for me, rolling over the link stopped the other roll. ;)

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

I made my poll pick, but I don't feel that strongly about it; it is nice to have all relevant info in one place.

I will admit to reading a thread almost all the way through before realizing it's 4 years old, though. :lol:

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

I voted, but only jokingly.

I don't start a whole lot of threads, but generally I will do a quick scan of the 1st page of threads to make sure I'm not duplicating something that's already being talked about. I don't think you need to do an extensive search of every thread in that forum to avoid duplication. However, if someone points out you've duplicated a topic already being discussed, the polite thing would be to continue the discussion in the original thread and have a mod either close or merge the 2nd thread.

For thread bumping, I don't have a problem with it as long as it's not just to have a bumping party bringing old threads back from the grave for no other reason than to satisfy your ego. A polite comment that you're bumping a really old thread is usually enough for me to be cool with it. That way if you read the last page and see when and why it was bumped it makes sense when you reply to it. That's my 2 cents.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

I think part of the problem is that there are an awful lot of posts that are back-and-forth discussion that do not actually contain relevant information. For instance, how many posts about The Dark Knight are complaints about there being so many threads about The Dark Knight? A couple of years from now, will a newcomer be chastised for not wading through all of them just to find the occasional nugget of actual information?

In a blog, there are tags that we can easily use to find older posts, but in a forum, we're left to the search feature. The problem with searching is that the person searching has to either sift through pages of posts and threads to verify that the subject has or has not already been covered, and that's assuming that he or she uses the correct terminology. Newbies don't always know the standard vernacular--it was months before I eventually found out what YMMV meant.

Ultimately, since moderators have the power to move and combine threads, I think that leaving this situation in their capable--and empowered--hands is sufficient. If you really want to streamline this site, someone ought to go back and scrub all the posts that consist of nothing but eye-rolling, snarky remarks and personal spats.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

You know it is kind of funny. I got blasted for not posting in a thread that was already made, but here was the issue, it was Three years old. I felt at that point I could make a new thread, instead of bumping a really old one. I guess it really depends on the person. Some want you to make a new thread instead of bumping a really old one, others want you to bump that old one heh.

Re: Resurrecting Old Threads vs. Not Using the Search Function
 

For anyone who isn't a moderator to be all irritated by resurrecting an old thread OR making a new one as an alternative is kind of well, stupid. You don't like it, don't read it. It's not like there's some personal stake in these threads.